Support NeoGAF

[lunch]

What do you think? And remember, think.

The website URL convinced me until I actually visited it. I'm a bit dense.

 

[Ptaaty]

I plan to eat there no difference than before. I could give a rats ass about the presidents personal belief.

I don't think they discriminate based on this for hiring (can't really).

Honestly if you try to just not use any products from companies that do things you don't agree with or have CEO/owner/etc that has beliefs against yours, well...you have a lot of research to do and probably some slim pickings.

 

[DECK'ARD]

The smallprint is amazing.

 

[Dead Man]

I haven't seen a single argument in this thread that "shot down" the basic argument that tax dollars and dollars sent to the private sector "finance" a host of things most people don't agree with. CFA isn't the only business with an owner who has questionable views. I'm not a fan of Papa John's conservative views, but I still order pizza there.

If someone eats at CFA it does not make them a bigot or a supporter of bigotry. Franchise owners should not be held responsible for the views of corporate management/ownership

It doesn't need to be shot down outside of telling people to vote. I can not give my money to CFA. Lets try not paying taxes. If I know a company does something I don't like, I will try not to support them. Obviously that is easier with some industries/companies than others.

Franchise owners in this case are CFA, and even if they were not, the franchisee buys a name, and needs to accept that. Why should franchisees not be effected by what corporate does? Employees are effected by that.

 

[ZoddGutts]

My sister and brother in law came to visit me today at my place with her new born (2 months old) niece as well. She brought chik fil a, thought about bringing the gay controversy thing. But you know I didn't want to ruin the meal between family. Funny thing is the only reason she brought me that is because I'm on a diet, normally she would have brought me In n Out, but Chik fil a is healthier apparently.

 

[KtSlime]

I plan to eat there no difference than before. I could give a rats ass about the presidents personal belief.

I don't think they discriminate based on this for hiring (can't really).

Honestly if you try to just not use any products from companies that do things you don't agree with or have CEO/owner/etc that has beliefs against yours, well...you have a lot of research to do and probably some slim pickings.

How do you feel about the president using corporate funds to further anti-gay marriage legislation?

 

[Fantastical]

Funny thing is the only reason she brought me that is because I'm on a diet, normally she would have brought me In n Out, but Chik fil a is healthier apparently.

I mean if you get a grilled chicken sandwich and no fries then maybe. Otherwise... I don't know about that logic.

 

[ZoddGutts]

No fries.

 

[Daydream Sequence]

That's how I intended it to be interpreted. I got the chargrilled sandwich though.

Bullshit. If your point was that it tasted good, you'd have said that. "Feels good" in this thread implies eating there felt good because of the meaning behind supporting Chick Fil A.

 

[Dude Abides]

I haven't seen a single argument in this thread that "shot down" the basic argument that tax dollars and dollars sent to the private sector "finance" a host of things most people don't agree with. CFA isn't the only business with an owner who has questionable views. I'm not a fan of Papa John's conservative views, but I still order pizza there.

If someone eats at CFA it does not make them a bigot or a supporter of bigotry. Franchise owners should not be held responsible for the views of corporate management/ownership

Read more closely. This particularly stupid version of the nirvana fallacy has been shot down multiple times.

 

[Sanjuro]

Bullshit. If your point was that it tasted good, you'd have said that. "Feels good" in this thread implies eating there felt good because of the meaning behind supporting Chick Fil A.

I would say then you don't know much about me, no worries though.

 

[Homeboyd]

Actually, it is the most appropriate thread.

You didn't get your tag ITT... did you?





I kid...

 

[Daydream Sequence]

I would say then you don't know much about me, no worries though.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the first place you'd go to in order to express your love of the dinner you just had was a thread about how the bigots at Chick Fil A donate millions of dollars to inhibit gay rights. Bravo.

 

[Trey]

Read more closely. This particularly stupid version of the nirvana fallacy has been shot down multiple times.

His point that you aren't necessarily a bigot if you choose to eat at CFA is preserved. So his purpose is served.

 

[Sanjuro]

Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the first place you'd go to in order to express your love of the dinner you just had was a thread about how the bigots at Chick Fil A donate millions of dollars to inhibit gay rights. Bravo.

I didn't have dinner there. I had it for breakfast/lunch after a night of heavy drinking on vacation. There are no other ongoing Chick-fil-a threads, so it's certainly topical. As for the rest, again you don't know me very well.

Being from Massachusetts and having visited Texas last week, the contrast is astounding.

 

[IrishNinja]

Has the NMA TV video been linked in the thread yet?

this, and that coupon, are so legit. glad i came back in.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

Had some Chick-Fil-A before I left Texas the other day. It felt good damn it.

Bye bye.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Read more closely. This particularly stupid version of the nirvana fallacy has been shot down multiple times.

You're basically just turning outrage into a buffet where you pick and choose what to be upset over. I'm merely asking for some consistency

Bye bye.

Why should he get banned for that? I haven't seen him post anything in support of anti-gay views.

 

[Devolution]

Timedog made some chick fil-gay tonight. MMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I haven't seen a single argument in this thread that "shot down" the basic argument that tax dollars and dollars sent to the private sector "finance" a host of things most people don't agree with. CFA isn't the only business with an owner who has questionable views. I'm not a fan of Papa John's conservative views, but I still order pizza there.

If someone eats at CFA it does not make them a bigot or a supporter of bigotry. Franchise owners should not be held responsible for the views of corporate management/ownership

As I put it to someone else, the degree of difficulty in packing up your life and moving to a country who's distribution of tax dollars is entirely agreeable (good luck) is exponentially higher than that of finding somewhere to eat that's not Chick Fil-a. Someone who eats at Chick Fil-a but supports gay marriage is basically saying that their desire to eat a chicken sandwich is stronger than the conviction of their beliefs. It doesn't mean that they don't genuinely support gay marriage, but it's a terribly gluttonous way of living, if you ask me.

 

[Pennybags]

Timedog made some chick fil-gay tonight. MMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

What does that even meeeaan?

 

[Acerac]

Timedog made some chick fil-gay tonight. MMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Firehead did as well. So delicious.

 

[Devolution]

What does that even meeeaan?

Did you miss the chick fil-gay recipe?

 

[Dead Man]

His point that you aren't necessarily a bigot if you choose to eat at CFA is preserved. So his purpose is served.

You may not be a bigot. You may just not give a shit. Which is not really that admirable either.

 

[FyreWulff]

Timedog made some chick fil-gay tonight. MMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Isn't that just the Double Down from KFC? Just breast on breast sandwich.

 

[Dude Abides]

His point that you aren't necessarily a bigot if you choose to eat at CFA is preserved. So his purpose is served.

That's not the argument. Read better.

You're basically just turning outrage into a buffet where you pick and choose what to be upset over. I'm merely asking for some consistency.

No, you're calling people hypocrites because you apparently can't justify eating at CFA on the actual merits. By your "logic," everyone who buys any product made by any large firm has no right to complain about any corporate misconduct anywhere. It's a cheap, transparent, and meritless rhetorical ploy. At least the "don't care, tastes good" people are intellectually honest. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

 

[Downhome]

Are there any recipes out there that come close to the exact flavor of the nuggets and strips? Each item there tastes different, and I'd like to do nuggets and strips now too.

 

[Keru_Shiri]

You're basically just turning outrage into a buffet where you pick and choose what to be upset over. I'm merely asking for some consistency

No offense, but this strikes me as such an arrogant argument. Who are you to make such arbitrary demands of what I can or cannot support?

But setting aside that, it has already been established that not nearly as many companies donate to political causes as some would have you believe. Earlier you said you took issue with Papa John's conservative view points. Fair enough. But do you have any links that show them making any kind of donations to hateful causes? Most I could find were local donations to the families of slain police officers.

Unless you know something I don't.

 

[Dead Man]

No, you're calling people hypocrites because you apparently can't justify eating at CFA on the actual merits. By your "logic," everyone who buys any product made by any large firm has no right to complain about any corporate misconduct anywhere. It's a cheap, transparent, and meritless rhetorical ploy. At least the "don't care, tastes good" people are intellectually honest. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Right on.

 

[Mercury Fred]

yes they are. i had some on saturday, can't stop thinking about it. chargrilled chicken club meal, get some of that cheese sauce for the waffle fries, and half tea/lemonade for the drink. oh god...

I'm surprised this junior has survived the great Chick-Fil-A trolling culling.

 

[Switters]

Guys, Antoine Dawdson has a message to help us through this trying thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUmoTOujJ7Q&sns=fb

Any tin hats want to guess how much he got for his endorsement?

 

[Trey]

I'm surprised this junior has survived the great Chick-Fil-A trolling culling.

He responded directly to a comment saying that CFA's chicken was terrible. Considering that the quality of the food is a subjective point that provides incentive to eat there in light of the company president's beliefs and the donations made in the company's name, arguing the merits of the food in question isn't a stretch.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Christwire is having fun with this now.

Get your coupons here!

http://chickfilafoundation.com/

Everyone on Facebook posting these fake/Photoshopped Chick-Fil-A ads in an attempt to support them is only making it worse for their cause.

For one thing, it's copyright infringement. Secondly, their CEO has said they won't be talking religion/politics in a public arena any further. Third, people will think these blatantly offensive shopped ads are official marketing materials that were approved by corporate.

 

[Link]

I'm waiting for Sarah Palin to post one. She's certainly dumb enough to do it.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Everyone on Facebook posting these fake/Photoshopped Chick-Fil-A ads in an attempt to support them is only making it worse for their cause.

For one thing, it's copyright infringement. Secondly, their CEO has said they won't be talking religion/politics in a public arena any further. Third, people will think these blatantly offensive shopped ads are official marketing materials that were approved by corporate.

All they would be doing is proving Poe's Law.

Besides, the smallprint on that coupon is well worth the fuss.

 

[blame space]

oh noooo, not copyright infringement!

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

oh noooo, not copyright infringement!

I'm saying from their viewpoint if the standing behind Chick-Fil-A is taking the moral high ground, stealing artwork doesn't help their cause.

Ya jerk.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I'm saying from their viewpoint if the standing behind Chick-Fil-A is taking the moral high ground, stealing artwork doesn't help their cause.

Ya jerk.

It's called satire.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Everyone on Facebook posting these fake/Photoshopped Chick-Fil-A ads in an attempt to support them is only making it worse for their cause.

For one thing, it's copyright infringement. Secondly, their CEO has said they won't be talking religion/politics in a public arena any further. Third, people will think these blatantly offensive shopped ads are official marketing materials that were approved by corporate.

The use of copyrighted material for the use of parody or satire is considered fair use.

blam

 

[Carcetti]

Seriously, those shopped ads are pretty gentle compared to some high-profile anti-ad campaigns I've seen.

 

[Zeliard]

Third, people will think these blatantly offensive shopped ads are official marketing materials that were approved by corporate.

lol

 

[LaserBuddha]

I guess I won't get to experience it firsthand now, but HOLY FUCK they have a cheese sauce for the fries? How did I miss this?

 

[CDX]

Direct link the Chick-Fil-gAy recipe:
http://hilahcooking.com/chick-fil-a-copycat/

The Chick-Fil-gAy has a new challenger.


Read, how they reverse engineered and came up with the copycat recipe here: SeriousEats.com - How to Make a Chick-Fil-A Sandwich at Home


And a direct link to the copycat recipe: SeriousEats.com - Homemade Chick-Fil-A Sandwiches - RECIPE

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

The use of copyrighted material for the use of parody or satire is considered fair use.

blam

I'm pretty sure if ChickFilA complains, at the very least "ChickFilAFoundation.com" is going to be taken down.

You can't create a domain using a companies name like that IIRC.

Not even if it was spelled wrong.. MikeRowSoft.com says hi.

 

[PhoenixDark]

No offense, but this strikes me as such an arrogant argument. Who are you to make such arbitrary demands of what I can or cannot support?

But setting aside that, it has already been established that not nearly as many companies donate to political causes as some would have you believe. Earlier you said you took issue with Papa John's conservative view points. Fair enough. But do you have any links that show them making any kind of donations to hateful causes? Most I could find were local donations to the families of slain police officers.

Unless you know something I don't.

I'm not making any demands - the other side is. My view is that if people want to eat there, they should be able to without being labeled bigots or supporters of bigotry - because at the end of the day these are individual franchises that shouldn't be held accountable for what the owner thinks. Likewise, those who decide not to eat there are well within their rights as well.

In terms of the consistency argument, it's a valid critique of problems these movements tend to have with hypocrisy. Protest mistreatment of workers at Nike while tweeting from an iPhone. Complain about Wal Mart while shopping at Whole Foods. etc. It's your right, and obviously not everyone does this. I just find the whole thing annoying.

 

[KtSlime]

I'm not making any demands - the other side is. My view is that if people want to eat there, they should be able to without being labeled bigots or supporters of bigotry - because at the end of the day these are individual franchises that shouldn't be held accountable for what the owner thinks. Likewise, those who decide not to eat there are well within their rights as well.

In terms of the consistency argument, it's a valid critique of problems these movements tend to have with hypocrisy. Protest mistreatment of workers at Nike while tweeting from an iPhone. Complain about Wal Mart while shopping at Whole Foods. etc. It's your right, and obviously not everyone does this. I just find the whole thing annoying.

They shouldn't, but this isn't a matter of what the owner thinks, it is a matter of what corporate spends their money on.

As to consistency, it's really hard to be consistent in your thinking and actions, so might as well not even try, right?

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

It's disturbing how many people actually think this. Being stubborn has never been, and will never be, a virtue.

I find it more endearing than backpedaling and sending a bag of money to a organization that supports a cause they don't believe in just get the suppose naysayers off your back. Oh yeah, and that hollow, meaningless apology. Comes with a free chicken sandwich.

 

[Cyan]

I'm not making any demands - the other side is. My view is that if people want to eat there, they should be able to without being labeled bigots or supporters of bigotry - because at the end of the day these are individual franchises that shouldn't be held accountable for what the owner thinks. Likewise, those who decide not to eat there are well within their rights as well.

In terms of the consistency argument, it's a valid critique of problems these movements tend to have with hypocrisy. Protest mistreatment of workers at Nike while tweeting from an iPhone. Complain about Wal Mart while shopping at Whole Foods. etc. It's your right, and obviously not everyone does this. I just find the whole thing annoying.

If you're not interested in boycotting, or you really like their food or whatever, great. You don't have to go through all this rationalization to justify it.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Would Obama eat at Chick-Fil-A? Like seriously, would he refuse to eat at a random franchise because of this story?

 

[BobTheFork]

Would Obama eat at Chick-Fil-A? Like seriously, would he refuse to eat at a random franchise because of this story?

Hell yeah. In an election year and after the stance he took, it would just be fodder.